If Elon decides to go for the Hail Mary 2nd stage recovery from presser, what sort of mission would likely provide best chance. Circular LEO or ellipse GTO?
Quote from: Lar on 03/31/2017 01:36 AM... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.But... why? It works as intended. You are trying to solve something that is not a real problem. Besides, the grid fins are already being strengthened for block V.
... induce a deliberate roll. But that makes the control algorithms more complex I expect.
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 01:24 PMSo is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible. I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?SpaceX will not have a monopoly as long as Blue Origins is in the Orbital launch Market. With Bezo's money, Blue Origins could just write off the entire development cost as money well spent.
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry.Furthermore, even if newcomers are able to join, it is reasonable to assume that SpaceX's practical experience and data gathered will by then have allowed them to refine the art even further, driving revenues per launch even lower - possibly to the point where the newcomer is not even making a profit on each launch. In that scenario, recouping initial investment costs will never be possible. I guess my point is, as much as Elon says the goal is to make access to space cheaper in general, it surely helps his cause even more if all the cheap access is provided by SpaceX. Then everyone who wants to get to space is still getting there cheaply, but all that launch volume is coming through SpaceX's revenue stream.So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
Quote from: manoweb on 03/31/2017 10:41 AMQuote from: Hauerg on 03/31/2017 10:35 AMThen check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.They also made VegaAnd the Epsilon
Quote from: Hauerg on 03/31/2017 10:35 AMThen check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.They also made Vega
Then check what the others have achieved within the last 10 years: Arianespace, Boeing, Lockheed (=ULA), Japan. In total they brought 1 (ONE!) new rocket, the HIIB. All together.
Quote from: wtrix on 03/31/2017 01:33 PMNice flight.Makes me think, what the people in ULA are thinking about their "safe" approach to Vulcan reusability.Ultimately with reliability being equal, economics will be the decider...
Nice flight.Makes me think, what the people in ULA are thinking about their "safe" approach to Vulcan reusability.
Do we have any idea as to what was changed out or refurbished, percentage of changes, and the associated costs with those parts and labour, for this launch ??...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 03/31/2017 04:04 PMQuote from: wtrix on 03/31/2017 01:33 PMNice flight.Makes me think, what the people in ULA are thinking about their "safe" approach to Vulcan reusability.Ultimately with reliability being equal, economics will be the decider...... And schedule."Safe" approach ironically, is years away. It might very well end up a "Virgin Galactic" situation.By the time SMART reuse becomes real, everyone will have moved on already.
Without dragging you through the math again...Generally speaking:1. We all want a solution that recovers as much valuable hardware as possible2. Adds as little costs (logistics, refurb, etc) as possible3. Can be done on as many missions as practical4. Maximize the number of reusesFull booster recovery gets the whole booster back (all the FS hardware). So it maximizes the value of hardware getting reused. However, it has a substantial performance hit if recovered down range, bigger for returns to origin. So it can only done on the portion of missions where the spacecraft is small and not going to an especially difficult orbit, so that enough fuel is left over to fly home with (the other portion of missions are still expendable). The booster must also experience hypersonic reentry which will affect refurbishment costs and the ultimate number of reuses.An autonomous, powered engine flyback brings back less hardware value, but the engines are most of the cost of a booster. This requires less propellant, so it can be done more often. It also could eliminate hypersonic exposure if the engine is encapsulated. Logistics are minimal (no ship, etc)SMART reuse is similar to autonomous flyback, but has essentially no performance hit, so it can be done every time. Its reentry shield also eliminates the hypersonics issue.So, its a trade between getting everything back, but at higher logistics and refurb costs with fewer opportunitiesVSGetting some of the hardware back more often with lower costs.We will all find out the answer after we try the different approaches.
So is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry....So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?
Without dragging you through the math again...
Quote from: garidan on 03/31/2017 04:53 PMWhat about the fin getting really hot ? It looks to lose pieces ...It is aluminum coated with ablatives. Future version will use higher temperature metal. - Ed Kyle
What about the fin getting really hot ? It looks to lose pieces ...
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/31/2017 04:55 PMQuote from: garidan on 03/31/2017 04:53 PMWhat about the fin getting really hot ? It looks to lose pieces ...It is aluminum coated with ablatives. Future version will use higher temperature metal. - Ed KyleWell they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...
Quote from: /u/ToryBrunoWithout dragging you through the math again...Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...
Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 01:24 PMSo is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry....So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will. Eventually. Maybe Skylon gets funded.That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.
Quote from: Bargemanos on 03/31/2017 06:24 PMQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/31/2017 04:55 PMQuote from: garidan on 03/31/2017 04:53 PMWhat about the fin getting really hot ? It looks to lose pieces ...It is aluminum coated with ablatives. Future version will use higher temperature metal. - Ed KyleWell they have to, when i saw the images of the fin burning up and the stream of the landig stage freezing... i held my breath...You holding your breath is not a sufficient reason for them to "have to" do anything. It may look bad, but the structure holds up pretty well. This is not the first flight where this fire/glow has been seen on grid fins.
Quote from: mme on 03/31/2017 06:18 PMQuote from: M.E.T. on 03/31/2017 01:24 PMSo is there any chance that the type of up front development costs of reusability can be used as major barrier to entry for future competitors, who will see far lower payback prospects given that SpaceX is already in the market and able to offer rock bottom prices? The $30m "fat" that SpaceX can build into each launch price will not be available to any future followers in this industry....So, can SpaceX develop a bit of a monopoly here, to help fund their Mars dreams?No. BO will likely succeed. If the market expands and there is money to me made there are plenty of companies and nations that can spend a billion dollars on reusability. What SX proved is that reusability is not as expensive to develop as everyone assumed. Even if ULA, Boeing and Lockheed Martin won't do it (and I think at least one of them will eventually), China, India, and the ESA will. Eventually. Maybe Skylon gets funded.That eventually will be way sooner than everyone seems to think. This was the re-launch and landing heard 'round the world.Knowing something can be done doesn't mean you can do it too.There are things money cannot buy.Japan lean system in automotive, their "total quality" approach, took years and a lot of retries to get done.It's a system plus a culture to change.You cannot buy another Elon Musk to steer a whole company toward a "vision"
Quote from: punder on 03/31/2017 06:21 PMQuote from: /u/ToryBrunoWithout dragging you through the math again...Tory Bruno has to be an incredibly smart and talented fellow. But wow, when reality is staring you in the face...He lives in a world where you bolt on extra SRBs at a substantial cost based on mission needs. SpaceX and even more so, Blue Origin has moved on to a world where you ensure your rocket has enough performance so that any spent on first stage recovery doesn't really matter - the payload still got where it needed to go and it did so at a much lower cost.Once your rocket is "overkill" for almost all possible payloads, who cares how much of that you left to the table if the hardware costs of your launch just got slashed in half?
998
Author
Topic: SpaceX F9 : SES-10 with reuse of CRS-8 Booster SN/1021 : 2017-03-30 : DISCUSSION (Read 367657 times)
